IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v108y2012i1p1-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating and improving orphan drug regulations in Europe: A Delphi policy study

Author

Listed:
  • Picavet, Eline
  • Cassiman, David
  • Simoens, Steven

Abstract

To encourage the development of orphan drugs, the European Union has implemented specific policies in 2000. However, the political, social, scientific and economic context has changed since the implementation of these policies. For that reason, the aim of this article is to evaluate orphan drug policies in Europe. Firstly, key issues on the orphan drug policy were identified based on desk research. Secondly, a Delphi policy study with 47 European orphan drug experts from different backgrounds was carried out to explore these issues. In the round one of the Delphi, responses were received from 18 experts (38.3%) and from ten (55.5%) in the round two. Experts agree that the orphan drug policies in Europe have not outlived their usefulness. Additionally, the importance of reducing country-dependent inequalities in patient access to orphan drugs has been emphasized. Still, there is room for further refinement of the orphan drug policies. Within that context, we formulated several policy recommendations (e.g. enforcing the policy that is in place to reduce the period of market exclusivity for profitable orphan drugs, stating the level of clinical evidence needed to authorize orphan drugs, etc.) with the overall goal to optimize patient access to orphan drugs.

Suggested Citation

  • Picavet, Eline & Cassiman, David & Simoens, Steven, 2012. "Evaluating and improving orphan drug regulations in Europe: A Delphi policy study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 1-9.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:108:y:2012:i:1:p:1-9
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2012.08.023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851012002461
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2012.08.023?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alison Abbott, 2011. "Rare-disease project has global ambitions," Nature, Nature, vol. 472(7341), pages 17-17, April.
    2. Wellman-Labadie, Olivier & Zhou, Youwen, 2010. "The US Orphan Drug Act: Rare disease research stimulator or commercial opportunity?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(2-3), pages 216-228, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Torrent-Farnell, J. & Comellas, M. & Poveda, J.L. & Abaitua, I. & Gutiérrez-Solana, L.G. & Pérez-López, J. & Cruz, J. & Urcelay, J. & Lizán, L., 2018. "The view of experts on initiatives to be undertaken to promote equity in the access to orphan drugs and specialised care for rare diseases in Spain: A Delphi consensus," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(6), pages 590-598.
    2. Todd Gammie & Christine Y Lu & Zaheer Ud-Din Babar, 2015. "Access to Orphan Drugs: A Comprehensive Review of Legislations, Regulations and Policies in 35 Countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-24, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Salas-Vega, Sebastian & Shearer, Emily & Mossialos, Elias, 2020. "Relationship between costs and clinical benefits of new cancer medicines in Australia, France, the UK, and the US," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    2. Dyfrig A Hughes & Jannine Poletti-Hughes, 2016. "Profitability and Market Value of Orphan Drug Companies: A Retrospective, Propensity-Matched Case-Control Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-12, October.
    3. Petra Maresova & Blanka Klimova & Kamil Kuca, 2016. "Financial and legislative aspects of drug development of orphan diseases on the European market -- a systematic review," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(27), pages 2562-2570, June.
    4. Todd Gammie & Christine Y Lu & Zaheer Ud-Din Babar, 2015. "Access to Orphan Drugs: A Comprehensive Review of Legislations, Regulations and Policies in 35 Countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-24, October.
    5. Aaron S Kesselheim & Jessica A Myers & Daniel H Solomon & Wolfgang C Winkelmayer & Raisa Levin & Jerry Avorn, 2012. "The Prevalence and Cost of Unapproved Uses of Top-Selling Orphan Drugs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-7, February.
    6. Marialuisa Saviano & Sergio Barile & Francesco Caputo & Mattia Lettieri & Stefania Zanda, 2019. "From Rare to Neglected Diseases: A Sustainable and Inclusive Healthcare Perspective for Reframing the Orphan Drugs Issue," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-21, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:108:y:2012:i:1:p:1-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.